The junk ‘science’ behind anti-‘hate’

When a psychologist dares to research politically contentious issues such as a link between race and IQ and comes up with the ‘wrong answer’, they automatically come under fire for a purely assumed motivation without any further evidence to justify the presumption of bias. But where is the outcry when psychologists confuse value judgements such as “homophobia” with valid scientific constructs and proceed to research them? Wasn’t the word “homophobia” invented for explicitly political reasons? Who decides on the double standard?

Such research is little more than an attempt to stigmatise political opinions as akin to mental illnesses – like former attempts to medicalise and ‘cure’ homosexuality itself.

Nice to see a fellow Alt-Right commenter started a blog, I’ve been considering starting on myself.
Homosexuals seem to have the negative traits of women amplified by several thousand percent (narcissism, gossipy and bitchy behaviour, willingness to backstab, inability to distinguish between emotion and intellect). This study recalls a study about Australians (of which I am one) who display the flag on Australia Day being more “racist” than Australians who didn’t go in for such patriotic displays. Note the name the study’s lead author “Netta Weinstein”.

The word is ‘junk science’ – it looks like real science but is manufactured for a political cause, whereas real science is impartial, or at least attempts to be.

You will notice junk science right away in many cases because the research started with the assumption that subjective and ill-defined categories of value judgement (“homophobia”, “racism”) are valid scientific concepts.